On a side note: in Italy the situation is similar but more dire — loads and loads of tiny businesses that barely survive and just don't pay much, along with abysmal taxation. I see signs of hope, in the form of several businesses that seem to get how to do better (I've been studying some marketing lately, coming from being a failure in Humanities), but still. To add to the situation are some VIP fraudsters who seem to propose a spaghetti version of American "innovators" — it doesn't land that much here because we're a schrewd bunch who always listen to the next charmer with a hand ready on the dagger, and yet they're always trying.
As for me, at one point I was getting pretty desperate and got convinced I was in some HR departments' black list, so I went freelancing even before having a definite profession just to make ends meet, with no time or energy to ask myself if I even trusted myself. I don't know how it's gonna turn up, so far I've been able to survive and even decide to believe in a f-ing newsletter. Now I'm seeing if I can become a trainer (people would see a good teacher in me, but I can't stand working in school and I should return to university anyway), I've been doing a not too shabby job by training unemployed adults. We'll see
While these complaints definitely have merit and warrant further exploration, there is some serious selection bias in the analysis that also deserves more careful examination, and it undermines the fundamental argument to the point of making this analysis (to me, at least) come across a bit more petulant and petty about how much of Sinek's work doesn't apply to this lived context (which I recogognize as a Negativity Bias issue) without giving appropriate credit to the nuggets that do apply to even small business or even solo proprietorship.
For starters, the narrow definition of the word "work" in Sinek's mission statement is a bit of a tell on the narrowness of the mindset (which would also affect aspirations to be an effective leader in the contexts being served). It seems to define "work exclusively as "formal employment for pay." That, to put it bluntly, is offensive af to people whose major life work is caring for their families - a context I've been immersed in for the last 20+ years and view through a sociological participant-observer lens. I've been balancing taking care of my family, and my own struggles as a physically disabled person, with applying my competencies to the betterment of the world around me as much as my stamina capacities allow. That's work, but it didn't come with a paycheck or a boss attached.
I might be back for more later, but now I need to go to a dentist appointment and I don't trust that I'll delegate attention to coming back to this later if I don't hit post now.
On a side note: in Italy the situation is similar but more dire — loads and loads of tiny businesses that barely survive and just don't pay much, along with abysmal taxation. I see signs of hope, in the form of several businesses that seem to get how to do better (I've been studying some marketing lately, coming from being a failure in Humanities), but still. To add to the situation are some VIP fraudsters who seem to propose a spaghetti version of American "innovators" — it doesn't land that much here because we're a schrewd bunch who always listen to the next charmer with a hand ready on the dagger, and yet they're always trying.
As for me, at one point I was getting pretty desperate and got convinced I was in some HR departments' black list, so I went freelancing even before having a definite profession just to make ends meet, with no time or energy to ask myself if I even trusted myself. I don't know how it's gonna turn up, so far I've been able to survive and even decide to believe in a f-ing newsletter. Now I'm seeing if I can become a trainer (people would see a good teacher in me, but I can't stand working in school and I should return to university anyway), I've been doing a not too shabby job by training unemployed adults. We'll see
Substance over sizzle.
It’s called marketing
His shtick is the same corporatised drivel selling a fantasy that will never exist. I loved reading every word of this take down!
While these complaints definitely have merit and warrant further exploration, there is some serious selection bias in the analysis that also deserves more careful examination, and it undermines the fundamental argument to the point of making this analysis (to me, at least) come across a bit more petulant and petty about how much of Sinek's work doesn't apply to this lived context (which I recogognize as a Negativity Bias issue) without giving appropriate credit to the nuggets that do apply to even small business or even solo proprietorship.
For starters, the narrow definition of the word "work" in Sinek's mission statement is a bit of a tell on the narrowness of the mindset (which would also affect aspirations to be an effective leader in the contexts being served). It seems to define "work exclusively as "formal employment for pay." That, to put it bluntly, is offensive af to people whose major life work is caring for their families - a context I've been immersed in for the last 20+ years and view through a sociological participant-observer lens. I've been balancing taking care of my family, and my own struggles as a physically disabled person, with applying my competencies to the betterment of the world around me as much as my stamina capacities allow. That's work, but it didn't come with a paycheck or a boss attached.
I might be back for more later, but now I need to go to a dentist appointment and I don't trust that I'll delegate attention to coming back to this later if I don't hit post now.